Is Fake News Here to Stay?

Experience from European elections suggests that investigative journalism and alerting the public in advance can help inoculate voters against disinformation campaigns. But the battle with fake news is likely to remain a cat-and-mouse game between its purveyors and the companies whose platforms they exploit.

CAMBRIDGE – The term “fake news” has become an epithet that US President Donald Trump attaches to any unfavorable story. But it is also an analytical term that describes deliberate disinformation presented in the form of a conventional news report.

The problem is not completely novel. In 1925, Harper’s Magazine published an article about the dangers of “fake news.” But today two-thirds of American adults get some of their news from social media, which rest on a business model that lends itself to outside manipulation and where algorithms can easily be gamed for profit or malign purposes.

Whether amateur, criminal, or governmental, many organizations – both domestic and foreign – are skilled at reverse engineering how tech platforms parse information. To give Russia credit, it was one of the first governments to understand how to weaponize social media and to use America’s own companies against it.

I am not optimistic that "Fake News" will ever truly be contained. Humans are social creatures and "Fake News" is an inherently social activity. When we read something outrageous, something we simply cannot believe, we feel the compulsion to share what we've read with someone else, if only to get their opinion on it (or because we want to see the look on their face as they read it!) As long as people have a way to share content, whether it be by social media, email, print or word of mouth, it seems very likely to me that "Fake News" will survive if not thrive as global communications become increasingly facilitated.

As long as internet platforms have an incentive to propagate clickbait (aka fake news), it's never going to disappear simply because of bad publicity, shaming, and fact checking.

The replacement of ad-based commercial television by a subscription model (Netflix, HBO etc) offers some hope, however. The traditional subscription model of media never prevent sponsored propaganda, but it does compartmentalize dissemination of the lowest common denominator and raise standards by creating platform reputations.

So let's start by banning the "free", advertising-based business model.

Great summation, that covers the problem of the label "fake news" with a 360 degree scope. It's not just vigilance, it is becoming engaged to action rather than reaction to being pushed into a direction that destroys democracies.

Democracies are just another word, a label that is perceived by the reader as the right kind of government, so long as it fits "your" cognitive bias. The "democracy" is today, anything but-not-really-a-democracy in any real sense of the real meaning of the word, politically or socially. Today, most nation states are lucky to even have real functionally maintained physical boundaries. In fact, how many people on a day-to-day basis even recognize how much they function outside of any laws at all anywhere? The actions of the Republicans in Wisconsin have effectively shown the US voters publicly, that the popular vote is totally meaningless. So how does that little effort of political opportunism grab democracy?

Most geographical areas are primarily work-zones, profit-centers for specific stakeholders that control, if they do not also own the most significant shares of public and private corporations. We are really not even living in functional democracies anymore. We are living in varying degrees of confined or non-confined residential zones along access routes for specific commercial or corporate operational zones. We are no longer living in functional democracies, nor functional states or nations. In the US, political position has even reached the level of functional non-meaning. Today, the only right is "might", which is raw, blatant, "power", that does not respect any level of law, especially any aspect of the concept of any word that comes close to resembling a democracy.

Here's my example of engagement, and it is only one. I am being vigilant and trying to discriminate about just what is really important to be concerned about for myself, on a day-to-day experiential level. Just what is going on in the world that really affects me personally. What can I do to affect any change. In reality, I can not do much of anything by myself. As a member of a group, can I really do anything?

Answering those two questions are my big dilemma especially after listening to the little podcast on PS about GLOBAL HEALTH. The podcast is focused on HIV and typically thought of "non-human-made"diseases. Yes, there are certain ways to prevent and protect any self, from those contagions. They are reasonable fears. They are unknowns that can attack any human being. It is debatable as to the "CAUSE" or origination of the pathogens. Everyone can join in and perhaps be willing to fight and help others to survive in their battle against "DISEASES not caused by mankind".

Then, I also read this article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/07/cancer-as-weapon-of-mass-destruction-poppy-bushs-radioactive-war-on-iraq/

Cancer as a weapon of mass destruction, a man-made action that is creating disease- now that is a real story for democratic actions. Sure, presently, the most immediate effects are for me anyway, way- over-there, across the Atlantic Ocean. But ashes to ashes is a very real phenomena, especially when it is radio-active and causes cancer to all kinds of unsuspecting beings everywhere. But, I know it ain't gonna be way-over-there for long. The real battle with fake news, is that fake news is NOT the battle at all.

And who started the battle, and where does the battle end? Well, I do know of more than one nation that is gasping it's last breath.

People are better informed than ever before.... and they are better at defining the truth... so I don't see a problem... and a better concern for democracy is leaders who listen far more to their citizens and do what they promise..

Sure, "constant vigilance" in the form of an acute intelligence attached to a nose that can smell a rat 20k km away, e.g., RT. But the bulk of unprincipled suasion in the US is domestic, through Fox, the NRA, APAC, Roy Cohn acolytes, etc. Americans have been bred for generations to be gullible, and long ago alienated the decent and civilized everywhere while remaining a dependable line-item on Bloomberg terminals. The world awaits new cultural and economic institutions designed from a deep place in human potential, a natural feature of which is an instinct for intellectual honesty.

If anyone's interested, just remembered an illustrative but narrow case of thwarted industrial FUD involving open source CPU IP. It accents the role of intellectual integrity across a principled and sophisticated community. See: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/10/arm_riscv_website/

Fake news via social media platforms is a single piece of a much larger issue negatively impacting the media industry. As big a problem as fake news, is media bias, and the 24-hour cable TV news cycle. Because there is not enough important reportable news within a 24-hour cycle, the cable networks have moved from traditional news outlets to exaggerated op-ed producers. Every story is angled to the political leanings of the networks and hosts. With viewership falling across cable platforms, and the need to produce content over a 24-hour period, the networks increasingly sensationalize every story and skew the story toward there demographic viewership. Given this, the networks have morphed into extensions of our political parties with every message / story tailored to the audience / base. Given the need for content, viewership and ratings, this will not change.

The real world definition of "Fake News", is anything (be it accurate or not) that the liberal/left establishment doesn't like. Total falsehoods that reflect the biases of the liberal/left establishment are in no danger of public attack.

Prof. Nye has made an excellent analysis here. Fake news can be created switch minimal efforts by any mischief minded amateur as it costs nothing. Selecting ambiguous words, dates, paraphrasing etc are useful tools. Once it is in the media it will take its own shape. T will spread like brush fire!

If caught, the perpetrator can always plead ' Freedom of Speech ' rights and can get away with crime,

Joseph S. Nye fears that fake news will not go anywhere, because the manipulation of mass information has been around for centuries, only that the term “fake news” is of recent times. In the Trump era it has rapidly become a catch-all term to discredit all kinds of stories. But fake news is completely made up, manipulated to resemble credible journalism, designed to deceive readers to attract maximum attention and, with it, advertising revenue. Freedom of speech in a democracy is a tool for good and evil. The loopholes have been exploited by rogue actors, using the KGB-style techniques of misinformation and the 21st century of communication technology. With the help of fake news sites, bots and trolls, misinformation spreads fast. As lies and falsehoods regenerate themselves, they reinforce opinions with certain algorithms. Raising public awareness may be the only appropriate action for damage control, and we need to be smarter at recognising and combating outright fabrication. A poll after the 2016 US election lends weight to the suggestion that the result was influenced by a widespread belief in fake news among Trump supporters. Another serious threat posed to the democratic process was Russian meddling, which helped elect Trump, whose wrecking-ball presidency has served the world as a weckup call. The author says “experience from European elections suggests that investigative journalism and alerting the public in advance can help inoculate voters against disinformation campaigns.” As a force of insidious evil, fake news has become a global problem, and our battle with distorting politics “is likely to remain a cat-and-mouse game between its purveyors and the companies whose platforms they exploit.”While hoaxes and lies reach billions instantly and online manipulation is becoming ever more sophisticated, journalistic integrity has gained traction. In a world where false and misleading information pose a threat to social stability, governments are increasingly turning to legislation to combat fake news. It is true that “imposing limits on free speech, protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, raises difficult practical problems.While machines and non-US actors have no First Amendment rights (and private companies are not bound by the First Amendment in any case), abhorrent domestic groups and individuals do, and they can serve as intermediaries for foreign influencers.” Although the First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression, there should also be limits on free speech, which come from the basic principle that you are not allowed to hold a hate speech or something similar to harm others. The author says the “problem of fake news and foreign impersonation of real news sources is difficult to resolve because it involves trade-offs among our important values.”And social media companies, “wary of coming under attack for censorship, want to avoid regulation by legislators who criticize them for both sins of omission and commission.” In Europe new laws oblige social media platforms to name advertisers who finance the content, and the amount paid. Media platforms have to remove terror-related content, racist material, fake news etc. or face fines of up to €50m. Apart from legislation, citizens in a civil society can also take actions to counter fake news, like fact-checking and debunking. The problem is that fact-checkers do not always step in until after publication, by which time it’s too late. Besides a fact-checked story does not always convince and prove effective. The author says, “the damage done by foreign actors may be less than the damage we do to ourselves.” There is a credibility problem, when people do not believe mainstream media and political elites. This is especially true in the US, when a majority of Americans believe that mainstream news outlets report "fake news." These findings are troubling, because confidence in an independent fourth estate is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Unfortunately right-leaning media outlets promote the lies that mainstream media peddle “fake” stories. Trump, who originally used the term "fake news," has continued to frequently slam the mainstream media. Fortunately they are still resilient and will survive his destructive presidency.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

PS OnPoint

The Mueller report in America, along with reports of interference in this week’s European Parliament election, has laid bare the lengths to which Russia will go to undermine Western democracies. But whether Westerners have fully awoken to the threat is an open question.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.